French is the traditional language of diplomacy. Diplomacy is the art of saying one thing while doing another. In recent weeks, France stepped forward to act as a broker of peace in Lebanon. "Act" is the key verb in that last sentence, as it now would seem that the only other verifiable part of the sentence is "in recent weeks." To correctly parse that sentence, one must understand that when France suggested it wanted to broker peace in Lebanon, it did not necessarily mean "broker" or "peace" or "Lebanon" in the way we might understand those words. The same is true when France further suggested it wanted to "lead" a "strong" "multinational" "force" there. I don't speak French, so I have no idea what the actual French words are for those concepts or what possible nuances there may be. I've been relying on news reports in English, which now inform me that the French do not intend to send any significant number of troops to what is supposed to be a force of 15,000 in Lebanon, like everyone thought they said they would. The heady moment of peace brokering having passed, uponsober reflection, the French now say they already have a general and some staff in south Lebanon ordering about UNIFIL, the U.N. monitoring entity there. That's plenty of leadership, the French suggested: All France needs to contribute now is another 200 combat engineers. In tactical terms, when it comes to securing a Middle East conflict zone, that can be referred to as "squat." The United Nations, which is trying to salvage what is left of its own self-respect after the utter failure of UNIFIL in Lebanon, is now publicly begging European nations to contribute troops. To find the last plain-speaking French leader, it is necessary to go back to Napoleon Bonaparte. He said he was going to take over Europe, and proceeded to do so. No, scratch that. He said he was going to bring French liberty and equality to Europe, then crowned himself emperor. Subsequent French history offers us a sordid string of third world colonizations followed by bloody wars to hang on long after the time to relinquish colonies had passed, setting the stage for corrupt government and prolonged conflict in places like Vietnam. More recently, we've seen the naked hypocrisy of Dominic de Villepin in the United Nations, braying about his humanitarian concerns for the Iraqi people, while trying to ensure mass murderer Saddam Hussein remained in power to honor his French contracts. The shamelessness of France knows no bounds. They have a domestic Arabic population and business interests in the Mideast to satisfy. They desperately want to be taken seriously as a major power. So they sat down with the United States and hammered out a peace plan. Then, before the ink was dry, they shrugged a Gallic shrug. I wish I could be charitable here and find some good excuses for the French. Ernest Hemingway, who had a soft spot for them, used to like to say, "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk." But Hemingway, unlike the French, had a sense of honor. French was once the lingua franca, back when men wore powdered wigs and France was a power to be reckoned with. None of those things are true now. French has been replaced by English as the language of foreign policy, business, tourism, the Internet and just about everything else. If we, those of us who enjoy conducting business in English rather than say, Chinese or Arabic, want it to stay that way, I'd suggest step one is that we should continue to state clearly our intentions and do what we say we aregoing to do. Even when the world doesn't necessarily like what we are saying. That is our French lesson for the day.

104 comments:

Here in Canada the french in quebec don't like us anglo's, nor do the Indians [no offense my cherokee friend] I guess that's why quebec tried to secede in the early nineties.They held a referendum {fixed}and the vote went in Canada's favour.[elijah]

To correctly parse that sentence, one must understand that when France suggested it wanted to broker peace in Lebanon, it did not necessarily mean "broker" or "peace" or "Lebanon" in the way we might understand those words....In tactical terms, when it comes to securing a Middle East conflict zone, that can be referred to as "squat."

The minute I heard that the French were brokering the peace, I knew that the whole shebang would turn into a farce.

It's way past time to pretend that France is worth a flip on the world scence--except as screw-ups.

I usually refer to France as "New Algeria." They're just about colonized.

A French UN "peacekeeping force" would alternate between mowing down unarmed, dark-skinned Christians with machine gun fire (Cote D'Ivoire, November 2004), raping children and creating child prostitution rings (Congo, 2002) or airdropping munitions to Arab Janjaweed militias on a genocidal quest in southern Sudan from UN bases in Chad (the whole friggin' time).

Now Warren, are the French supposed to act in their own interest or ours? Having helped transform Hizbullah from a band of terrorists into the rock stars of the Muslim world let's give Israel a big hand and also ask why we need to clean up their mess when they show no signs of learning a lesson.

With Bush showing the way by turning the region ultra militant why would any nation, especially a non-muslim nation want to get involved in Lebanon?

Don't blame the French for having more common sense than Olmert and Chimp combined.

When it's all said and done, France and other lippy Europeans won't ante up any UN troops for Lebanon, Hezbollah will continue to photoshop non-existent atrocities, and Israel will resume whipping their asses at will.

The real payoff will be when Israel clears Syria of Hezbollah, and the world clears Persia of Iranians.

You should have mentioned France's disastrous retreat from Algeria. This was after they elected Charles De Gaulle who promised to bring order to Algeria and then after being elected decided to cut and run leaving French and Algerians to the mercy of Islamic radicals.

Well Ducky, its really not about what the French did or Iran or Iraq, Its about what passes for diplomacy.

You can't make deals with an entity that bargains in bad faith. The map is not the territory, so to speak.

But being that you have an obsession with reality turned on its head, (the cinema), I doubt that you understand what I'm talking about.

Essentially, these so-called "cease fires", "binding agreements", and "international embargoes" are worthless and should be shunned.

I find this interesting:"With Bush showing the way by turning the region ultra militant why would any nation, especially a non-muslim nation want to get involved in Lebanon?"

You start with a logical fallacy and then proceed directly to a straw man argument. Both are vapid as your reasoning abilities but can be shown false inside their own false logic chain.

1. Do you suffer from an early onset of Alzheimer’s disease?

Muslim radicalism and terrorism reared its ugly head in the last century during the reign of Pope Jimmy the ineffectual and incompetent, Or do you believe that the taking of a US embassy and having your diplomats and ambassadors kidnapped and held for ransom is normal?

Other than that, you are making a claim, often heard from fantasy land, that you can't substantiate.

2. The second part of your, somewhat obtuse, question: "why would any nation, especially a non-muslim nation want to get involved in Lebanon?"

Because they called for the "cease fire" and then agreed to "get involved", specifically, to provide a certain number of "Peace Keepers".

But then again, when you live in a world where all words mean whatever you want, it all means nothing!

1. warren are you trying to say that iran hasn't gotten more militant and powerful since Chucklenuts pulled his "axis of evil" stunt? They have a zone of influence now from western Afghanistan to Lebanon.

I'd say that the Dauphin has screwed up big.

2. Since the IDF was having a good time firing on UN posts while its tank crews were getting stuffed you can imagine that some nations are going to be a little cautious, especially since Israel's word is worth crap.

Italy may step up since they were the only nation not fired on during the first Israeli fiasco in Lebanon but you don't establish a presence without clear rules of engagement which include firing on the IDF when necessary.

Basically your contention that Iran hasn't been increasing its militancy till your lover Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq is as full of DUCK crap as you are.

As far as your second lame comment about the IDF firing on UN outposts, roll the clock back about 5-6 years ago when the UN outpost filmed the abduction of several IDF soldiers in a cross border attack that also killed IDF soldiers (deja vu??). The UN did NOT turn over the film to the Israelis. After a year of pressure they turned over copies with the faces of the Hizbully cowards covered so that Israel could not trace them. There is solid evidence that several Indian Peace Keepers were complicit in the attack.

More up to date we have a Hizbully flag flying over UN OP's. We have the UN observers doing NOTHING about Hizbully maneuvering and launching missiles from close proximity to UN posts. We have a Canadian, subsequently killed in an Israeli attack on these Hizbully, trying to warn his command about these illegal, murderous activities.

I wonder what the Algerians thought of this PEACE after the FLN massacre of pro-French Algerians?The aftereffects of this surrender are still being felt as many of second-generation Algerians were a large part of those rioting in Paris earlier this year.I guess we just have different definitions for the word PEACE.

Ducky said:"1. warren are you trying to say that iran hasn't gotten more militant and powerful since Chucklenuts pulled his "axis of evil" stunt? They have a zone of influence now from western Afghanistan to Lebanon."

You're still off topic!

It doesn't matter if Iran has became "more" militant.

You assume two a priori positions, 1. Iran has become more militant. 2. It is the fault of GWB.

Its hard for me to imagine anything more militant that a communist style revolution carried out in the name of religion. Especially when the consolidation of power includes rounding up your communist allies and executing them. (rumor has it that they drained them for the blood banks before their corpses were hung.) Trying to invade a neighboring State and using children and women to clear the mine fields by running them through them. Financing, strategic and logistical support to attack Americans and murder them in mass.

Using your logic, The Polish, French, and Russians, (in turn) were responsible for "increasing" the militancy of the 3rd Reich... Or perhaps it was Churchill all by his lonesome.

Realistically, the militancy increased (numbers of militants) from 1972 forward, because it could. The threat wasn't taken seriously and what little HINT we had on the ground was ignored.

Your #2 point is another straw man and irrelevant to my point. If the UN creepies want to keep their butts in one piece, they should refrain from share facilities with the people whom are supposed to be keeping an eye on. Specifically, not allow their buddies to fire missile's from their basses.

But even this proves my point about the worthiness of "French style diplomacy".

French is also the international language of surrender, appeasement, retreat and libertine nazism. It's also about to be replaced by Arabic as the national language of "France"--and what we call "France" will soon be dubbed by the UN and EU as New Algeria.

Oh warren, there was a democratic movement in iran. Now after "axis of evil" iranian nationalism came more to the fore.

Iran had two opponents in the region...Hussein and the Taliban. Both are gone and Iran is exerting influence in both areas. This is a direct result of president Chucklenuts crappy command. He couldn't get the job done ... he's a joke just like you Indiana second amendment pussy boys. Plenty of talk and no results.

as usual your logic is nonexistent. Nationalism and Democracy fit together very well. It is only in fascist minds like yours where they do not to try and pass your argument like gas.

By your logic Bush 1 should not have launched Iraq war 1. This would have allowed Sodam Insane relatively unmolested time to complete his nuclear ambitions.

He would have announced the Bomb and the ME would have gone to war raising the Nationalism index into space and Sodam would have nuked his way to hegemony.

Alternatively, the other countries would have capitulated realising that the west were a bunch of ducky pussies who would do NOTHING as long as the technology and oil deals continued.

Either way we would have the New Caliphate launching the modern Jihad against the rest of the WORLD with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

As far as your sudden love for Democracy, I guess with Castro, Sodam Insane, Putin, Chavez, and numerous other dictators being reelected regularly it sounds pretty good to you!!

Ahmadinejad was elected Democratically!!! Hamas was elected Democratically. Hizbully was elected to a number of gubmint positions in Lebanon Democratically!!!

Heck, Gore would have been Democratically elected if our forefathers had been stupid enough to saddle us with a Democracy!!!!

So, MORON, when are you going to blame the AIDS epidemic on Bush. How about the sinking of the Lusitanic, Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Maine, the Challenger Disaster, Clintoons election, the Drug epidemic, inner city decay, tooth decay, your own stupidity...?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You should beg MR John Brown Stain for what is left of his brain!! It is unused and would bring you up to the level of a tapeworm!!!

Ducky said:"Oh warren, there was a democratic movement in iran. Now after "axis of evil" iranian nationalism came more to the fore."

Yea right,

Because GWB called the government of Iran (the Mullahs), part of an axis of evil, (something they already knew), all of the peace loving democracy craving people of Iran turned into a bunch of rabid nationalists.

Missinglink,I know the similarities between the Nazi rise to power and the Islamo-Fascists in the middle-east are not a coincidence.

The political moves, propaganda, the two faced rhetoric used by the main players. All of it has been studied and refined. But the leftist refuse to see just as they did at that time. Others are unable to see because they are ignorant and still more are like herd animals to the slaughter.

Florian,You must remember that the Elisted men and NCOs of the Legion were not French.

Until historically recent times, their offices were required to be French citizens but that's not true anymore.

After WW2, the Legion filled with former Weimar and SS, rank and file. The French used them in French Indo-China, (Vietnam), until the word got out they were using former "Nazis", where upon they were pulled and replaced by French Regulars who promptly got their ass whooped by the Viet Mhin.

You may practice with cheaper .38 spec. The ammo is cheap and a large variety of different weight and power cartridges are available. Fully jacketed slugs, hollow point ammo in different weight and velocity to special frangable bullets that don't penetrate far but leave a large wound.

Any configuration of revolver is available in 357 and you can find a really good buy on a used one if you look around.

From what you have said, I would suggest a Ruger SP101, (Pictured Here)

Its made for concealed carry, its stainless steel and you don't have to clean it near as much plus its easy to handle and clean. Its made in several configurations.

Some people don't like it because its a 5 shot but I'm a proponent of accuracy over capacity, (the only bullet that counts is the one that hits).

Take a look at the link and read the article.

I have one of the first that came out several years ago. Its my wife's carry piece and neither of us would think of parting with it.

A .44 special isn't a bad choice either, but its a larger pistol and the ammo is more expensive. Taurus makes some fine .44 specs.

I have some suggestions for practicing with a weapon for self defense if you're interested in hearing them.

Thanks Warren, but, just give me a little time to get my bikes out of state and they can wipe out both coasts and leave the middle!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I wonder if they are considering that hitting the large cities is more likely to kill LEFTARDS and not the religious right or conservatives?? A couple big terrorist hits could change our gubmint for generations!!!

warren - sometimes we are recognizable by our little peccadilloes - you know mine. i use a spell checker also, but sometimes like to mess it up by leaving a misspelling in!

i cannot think of one person in our community i would trade for another - imperfections and all, we are a great bunch! people who desire to change us are merely inadequate. that is for them to accept, not us.

when people say to me, "you march to a different drummer." i say, "dayam straight!"

Clampett- I suggest you go read a Bible sometimes, you know, LIKE THE WHOLE THING! Seems to me, at Armageddon, Jesus KILLS ALL HIS ENEMIES with a SWORD coming out of HIS mouth! With a WORD HE kills them! And the blood shed ,BY HIM, rises to the level of a horse's bridle! Lotta blood and guts. And the Tribulation is full of G*D's judgements, some of them so horrendous that a nuclear blast is quick and clean. G*D judges Evil, we are supposed to be just as discerning and deal with it. Oh, didn't Paul say something about human authorities being given that authority, BY G*D, tobe a TERROR to Evildoers? And doesn't he also say something about "not bearing the SWORD in vain"? Evil is to be dealt with, not appeased or jollied along! If you bring G*D and Jesus into it, bring ALL OF HIM with you, don't pick and choose, HE's not a buffet!Good morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!

Those who concentrate on "the social gospel" are fixated on the Sermon on the Mount--certains portions of it, anyway. I'm thinking of the Beatitudes, of course. But the Sermon covers some three chapters in the Book of Matthew.

Hi, Nanc, so glad you could come down and join the rest of us!Good night,Sleep tight, And plesant dreams to you,Here's a wish and a prayer,That every dream comes true,Now until we meet again,Adios,Au Revoir(sic),Auf wedersain!

Warren- I will be e-mailing you later.Nanc and KuhnKat- I told Donal I would try and contact you two, she has a great idea and we need to know if you would be interested! So do the contact thingy! Please!Good morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!

KuhnKat, go to my profile(click on my name) and cick on the contact me button(or the words), write a short e-mail introducing yourself and I should get back to you by evening! I have 2 teens that I share an internet connection with! I can demand, but prefer requests unless it's so important(like updates of Ernesto) that I make threats. actually they are quite polite, but sometimes... The threats usually involve food, I know my weapons! heheheChat at you soon!

Okay, I'll go talk to the Pres-Elect, I don't have Nanc's, but she can probably get mine from Warren! As for my blog, I haven't done anything with it, maybe in the future I'll post something, but I'm having to much fun poaching!

With 2 teens, if I use less than parlor language, I get laughed at! Or the fake shock, horror, faints and gasps! It's too funny, so I really don't use profanities, much, except when I slip and fall in the kitchen. sigh Brooke and KuhnKat- Sent you e-mails! Thanks for the reply, Brooke! You're in! As soon as yahoo straightens out and allows me into my address book! Guess Ernesto is causing server problems, due to high volume! Probably will not have power problems tomorrow, but I might be off-line for awhile.Good night, thanks for all the responses and I will get back to you as soon as I can!G*D bless all!tmw

Felis- Cats have their own version of profanatese, and it can be hard on human ears! Because they will get up in your face or follow you around, "under your feet" complaining all the way! Or walk on a full bladder first thing in the morning...talking at you the whole time! And it can get pretty vile.Good morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!